Agenda and minutes

1.         This meeting is to be webcast. Members are reminded of the need to activate their microphones before speaking.

2.         The Chairman will read the following announcement:

“I would like to remind everyone present that this meeting will be broadcast live to the Internet and will be capable of repeated viewing and copies of the recording could be made available for those that request it.

If you are seated in the lower public seating area it is likely that the recording cameras will capture your image and this will result in the possibility that your image will become part of the broadcast.

This may infringe your human and data protection rights and if you wish to avoid this you should move to the upper public gallery”

The Chairman made a short address to remind all present that the meeting would be broadcast on the Internet, and that the Council had adopted a protocol for the webcasting of its meetings. The Sub-Committee noted the Council’s Protocol for Webcasting of Council and Other Meetings.

The Chairman welcomed members of the public to the meeting and outlined the procedures and arrangements agreed by the Council, to enable persons to address the Sub-Committee in relation to the determination of applications for planning permission.

To confirm the minutes of the last meeting of the Sub-Committee held on 23 May 2012 as a correct record (attached).

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the last meeting of the Sub-Committee held on 23 May 2012 be agreed.

(Assistant to the Chief Executive) To declare interests in any item on this agenda.

(a)        Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct, Councillor Mrs E Webster declared a personal interest in the following item of the agenda by virtue of being a member of Waltham Abbey Town Council, although not a member of the Town Council Planning Committee. The Councillor added that the site in question was within her Essex County Council ward. The Councillor declared that her interest was not prejudicial and indicated that she would remain in the meeting during the consideration and voting on the item:

• EPF/0821/12 Woodview Cottage, Pynest Green Lane, Waltham Abbey EN9 3QL

(b)        Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct, Councillor R Bassett declared a personal interest in the following item of the agenda by virtue of living reasonably close to the site concerned. The Councillor declared that his interest was not prejudicial and indicated that he would remain in the meeting during the consideration and voting on the item:

• EPF/0686/12 Land Rear of 66-70 Western Road, Nazeing EN9 2QQ

(c)        Pursuant to the Member’s Code of Conduct, Councillor Mrs S Stavrou declared a personal interest in the following item of the agenda. The Councillor had taken officer’s advice and stated that her interest was under unusual circumstances in that both the applicant and several objectors had sought procedural advice from herself as ward member on how to pursue the application and the objections. Although she had never expressed any view about the planning merits of the application to any member of the public, such had been the weight of views expressed that she felt unable to participate in the debate. She added that the Code of Conduct required her to declare a prejudicial interest if a member of the public in possession of the facts would reasonably feel that her judgement of the public interest was influenced by past contacts regarding this application. She felt that any comments made or vote cast would almost certainly result in one side or the other criticising her actions and had therefore concluded that a prejudicial interest existed and would leave the meeting for this item and the voting thereon:

• EPF/0821/12 Woodview Cottage, Pynest Green Lane, Waltham Abbey EN9 3QL

Section 100B(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972, together with paragraphs 6 and 25 of the Council Procedure Rules contained in the Constitution requires that the permission of the Chairman be obtained, after prior notice to the Chief Executive, before urgent business not specified in the agenda (including a supplementary agenda of which the statutory period of notice has been given) may be transacted.

In accordance with Operational Standing Order 6 (non-executive bodies), any item raised by a non-member shall require the support of a member of the Committee concerned and the Chairman of that Committee.  Two weeks' notice of non-urgent items is required.

It was reported that there was no urgent business for consideration at the meeting.

(Director of Planning and Economic Development)  To consider the planning applications set out in the attached schedule

Background Papers

(i)         Applications for determination – applications listed on the schedule, letters of representation received regarding the applications which are summarised on the schedule. 

(ii)        Enforcement of Planning Control – the reports of officers inspecting the properties listed on the schedule in respect of which consideration is to be given to the enforcement of planning control.

The Sub-Committee considered a schedule of applications for planning permission.

            RESOLVED:

            That, Planning applications numbered 1 – 3 be determined as set out in the annex to these minutes.

To consider the attached report.

The Sub-Committee received a report regarding Probity in Planning – Appeal Decisions, October 2011 to March 2012. In compliance with the recommendation of the District Auditor, the report advised the decision-making committees of the results of all successful appeals, particularly those refused by committee contrary to officer recommendation. The purpose was to inform the committee of the consequences of their decisions in this respect, and, in cases where the refusal was found unsupportable on planning grounds, an award of costs could be made against the Council.

Since 2011/12, there had been two local indicators, one which measured all planning application type appeals as a result of committee reversals of officer recommendation (KPI55), and the other which measured the performance of officer recommendations and delegated decisions (KPI54). Over the six month period between October 2011 and March 2012, the Council received 51 decisions on appeal (44 of which were planning related appeals, the other 7 were enforcement related). Of this, 11 were allowed (25%). For the year end, both targets for KPI 54 and KPI 55 had been achieved. However, between October 2011 and March 2012, in respect of KPI 54, 6 out of 35 were allowed (17%) and for KPI55, 5 out of 9 were allowed (55%). Out of the 9 planning appeals that arose from decisions of the committees to refuse contrary to the recommendation put to them by officers during the 6 month period, the Council was not successful in sustaining the committee’s objection in 5 cases, 2 each in Area Plans South, Area Plans East and 1 in Area Plans West.

Therefore, the committees were urged to heed the advice that when considering setting aside the officer’s recommendation it should only be in cases where members were certain they were acting in the wider public interest and where the committee officer could give indication of some success at defending the decision. Out of 7 enforcement notice appeals decided, 1 was allowed and one part allowed/part dismissed, although in the latter case the greater part of the appeal was dismissed. During this period, there was 1 successful finalised award of costs made against the council.

The Planning Inspectorate’s quashing of an enforcement appeal resulted in an award of costs of £2,200.00 against the Council in respect of Plots 40-41 Roydon Lodge Chalet Estate, Roydon after failing to follow the appeal procedure. The enforcement notice was withdrawn after receipt and grant of an application for a certificate of lawful development because the alleged use was proven to be time immune. The Planning Inspector considered the appeal could have been avoided by more diligent investigation by the Council and awarded costs because the appellant had already incurred costs in preparing for the appeal.

Whilst performance in defending appeals had improved, particularly in respect of committee reversals, members were reminded that in refusing planning permission there needed to be justified reasons that in each case, must be relevant, necessary, but also sound and defendable.

The Planning Services Scrutiny Standing Panel at  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.

(Director of Planning and Economic Development) Schedules of planning applications determined by the Head of Planning and Economic Development under delegated powers since the last meeting of a Plans Subcommittee may be inspected in the Members’ Room or at the Planning and Economic Development Information Desk at the Civic Offices, Epping.

The Sub-Committee noted that details of planning applications determined by the Head of Planning Economic Development under delegated authority since the last meeting had been circulated to all members and were available for inspection at the Civic Offices.